TY - JOUR
T1 - Characterization of powder flow
T2 - Static and dynamic testing
AU - Krantz, Matthew
AU - Zhang, Hui
AU - Zhu, Jesse
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and General Motors of Canada for their support of this work.
PY - 2009/9/15
Y1 - 2009/9/15
N2 - Many characterization techniques are available to determine the flow properties of powders; however, it is debated which method(s) are the most appropriate. In this study, sample fine powders with a medium particle size between 22 and 31 μm were characterized using a variety of techniques that tested powders under different stress states, ranging from static to dynamic. It was found that characterization techniques that were more dynamic such as fluidized bed expansion were best suited for predicting the fluidization performance while characterization techniques that were more static such as cohesion were better for predicting agglomeration. It was also found that results from static and dynamic characterization do not necessarily agree, where fine powders that showed good fluidization performance also displayed increased agglomeration, and vice versa. This suggests that flow properties are dependent upon the stress state and that no single technique is suitable for the full characterization of a powder. In other words, both static and dynamic characterization techniques must be employed to completely understand the flow properties of a powder and predict how it will behave under different process conditions.
AB - Many characterization techniques are available to determine the flow properties of powders; however, it is debated which method(s) are the most appropriate. In this study, sample fine powders with a medium particle size between 22 and 31 μm were characterized using a variety of techniques that tested powders under different stress states, ranging from static to dynamic. It was found that characterization techniques that were more dynamic such as fluidized bed expansion were best suited for predicting the fluidization performance while characterization techniques that were more static such as cohesion were better for predicting agglomeration. It was also found that results from static and dynamic characterization do not necessarily agree, where fine powders that showed good fluidization performance also displayed increased agglomeration, and vice versa. This suggests that flow properties are dependent upon the stress state and that no single technique is suitable for the full characterization of a powder. In other words, both static and dynamic characterization techniques must be employed to completely understand the flow properties of a powder and predict how it will behave under different process conditions.
KW - Agglomeration
KW - Fluidization
KW - Particulate processes
KW - Powder characterization
KW - Powder technology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67349086184&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.powtec.2009.05.001
DO - 10.1016/j.powtec.2009.05.001
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:67349086184
SN - 0032-5910
VL - 194
SP - 239
EP - 245
JO - Powder Technology
JF - Powder Technology
IS - 3
ER -